Connect with us

Economics

House Republicans fear Trump too much to aid Ukraine

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

America’s Congress does not have a reputation for productivity, but its failure to authorise more aid for Ukraine is unusual even for the underachievers on Capitol Hill. And the legislation’s already grim prospects are diminishing as the presidential election approaches.

On February 13th the Senate approved a $95bn bill. Most of that funding is meant to assist Ukraine and replenish America’s dwindling weapons stocks. The legislation also includes $14bn for Israel, $9.2bn for humanitarian relief and some $8bn for the Indo-Pacific. Almost every Democrat and 22 Republicans voted in favour.

That is as far as the legislation is likely to go. A wing of isolationist Republicans has always opposed helping Ukraine, but now some legislators previously supportive of Ukraine argue that they shouldn’t help until America resolves its border crisis. Donald Trump, aiming to keep America’s immigration mess as a campaign issue, ordered Republicans to oppose a compromise. He also has insisted any foreign assistance should come in the form of loans to be repaid in the future.

Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, called on the House to take up the bill, as it would almost certainly pass the House if voted on. But Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, listens more closely to Mr Trump than he does to Democratic senators. “The mandate of national-security supplemental legislation was to secure America’s own border before sending additional foreign aid,” Mr Johnson said before the bill passed. “Now, in the absence of having received any single border policy change from the Senate, the House will have to continue to work its own will.”

Republicans apparently had the great misfortune of getting what they asked for. First, they demanded that the border and Ukraine be linked. When Senate negotiators offered the toughest immigration law in decades, most Republicans rejected the offer. A foreign-aid-only bill passed, and now Mr Johnson is complaining that it does nothing to control immigration.

Republicans have such a small majority in the House that a few anti-Ukraine congressmen could challenge Mr Johnson as speaker if he were to allow a vote on military aid. He could theoretically offer amendments or restart the whole process, though there is little evidence that this House is capable of doing much. He could also split the bill into pieces and offer separate votes for Ukraine and Israel, for example, though that too appears unlikely.

Perhaps the only hope for Ukraine funding is a parliamentary manoeuvre known as a discharge petition. The time-consuming, multi-step process allows a simple majority of the House to force a vote on legislation. The mechanism could take more than a month to play out, and it hasn’t been successfully used in nearly a decade. Both sides seem to agree the tactic is unlikely to succeed.

Even though a majority of the House still supports Ukraine, many Republicans don’t feel strongly enough to defy House leadership and Mr Trump. It’s one thing to support Ukraine; it’s another to risk losing a primary to a Trump-backed challenger. And some House Democrats plan to reject the bill because of its support for Israel. Every Democratic defection will require another Republican to step up.

Time is running out for Ukraine funding, but it’s not the only item on Mr Johnson’s agenda. The House impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security, on the same day that the Senate passed the aid bill. And a partial government shutdown will begin on March 1st in the absence of legislative action. Mr Johnson says that is where he has directed his attention now. Yet a lapse in government funding looks increasingly likely: House Republicans have shown themselves to be as feckless on setting a budget as they have been on helping allies.

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Economics

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

Published

on

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.

How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister

Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.

If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.

Why No Election Was Required

A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.

This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.

The King’s Constitutional Role

After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.

Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.

Could an Election Still Happen?

Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.

In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.

What This Means for the UK

The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.

Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Grid Upgrades Reshape Macro Economics

Published

on

Global grid upgrades reshape macro economics

On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.

According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.

The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.

For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

Published

on

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.

The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.

Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.

For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.

Continue Reading

Trending